Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[Curiosity's Cat]

Yessss! Oh! Oh! I got another one! What about a celibacy group meeting, you know those things where people pledge not to have sex before marriage.

Totally. Appropriate.

Ohohoh. I don't fully know why as it does not 100% fit. But my mind keeps screaming at me "Dude! Duuuuuude. Dude, like seriously man. Wait for it, youre gonna love it... Dude... Cervical cancer survivors meeting... SCORE!!! \o/"
Is it bad when even I think my mind is a total asshole?
I spose you could hand them out at that lifetime pedo prison in California... But that may be taking it a leeeeettle too far yes?
Sure its there to "rehabilitate" them but lets be honest. They aint never getting out of there.

Lol, they are both disturbing in different ways. If I try to think about what the pedo one would actually mean too much, my brain rebels. X_X Actually that also goes for the cancer one... I think you win at terrible humour one-ups-manship. Ten points!

 

[geldonyetich]

Hymens--you break it, you bought it

I laughed cola out my nose when I read this. I wish I had it on a T-shirt.

Although I'm not surely where exactly I could get away with wearing it.

Better make it a white, lacy shirt. Nobody would believe you if it were scarlet red or black.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Then there's the whole issue of classifying rape. I find it somewhat confusing that two people can have consensual sex and it be termed "rape" by the courts. I'm speaking, of course, of statutory rape. Many cases of statutory rape are cases of consensual sex between two people, one who is just above the 18 mark, and the other just below it. But the difference between this kind of "rape" and actual rape is huge. Yet they share the same name.

Yeah--rape was just always the catch-all term for having sex with a woman who's sexuality was owned by another man. In some places at certain times, a defense to the charge of statutory rape was if you offered to marry the girl--in other words, the crime had nothing to do with the woman's human rights, but to do with the father's property rights.

Hymens--you break it, you bought it

Well, not always the catch-all term in truth--the term rape comes from the Latin rapio, which means to seize. In the 'myth' version of the history of The Rape of the Sabine Women, the Romans don't sexually assault the Sabine women, they kidnap them and try to convince them to become brides to the Roman men.

And it doesn't seem fair to punish one person for having consensual sex with the same level of severity the law would punish someone else who actually rapes a person against their will.

I'd say one, that it's not necessarily a matter of consensual sex--it's also possibly a matter of abusing a minor because minors are entitled to protections even from themselves and therefore the 'consent' of a minor is different from that of an adult in some situations. Two, I think that's changed a lot over the years--it's a long process when a law goes from having one basis (the idea that another person owns your sexuality as if it were a piece of property) to one that's radically different (the idea that you own your own sexuality)


These days a lot of criminal codes do away with the term 'rape' altogether and just call it 'sexual assault'

Ah... I forgot about the fact that women didn't really have too many rights until recently in America. The idea of a woman's body and sexuality not belonging to her... Yeah, that would definitely affect folk's attitudes towards rape. The idea that someone owns your sexuality (other than you) probably is a derivative of the idea that one person owns YOU (slavery). Just because slavery was outlawed didn't mean they couldn't practice some form of it, I guess. But can you imagine anything worse than being forced to marry your rapist? I'd turn cold-blooded killer in a minute over crap like that. Sometimes I forget how cruddy things were even as recently as fifty years ago. Well, "forget" in the sense that I forget what I learned in American History class.

As much as I dislike "Politically-correct" language, Sexual Assault is a much more descriptive and accurate term for rape/assorted sex crimes. And yeah, sometimes "mutual consent" isn't so mutual if the person is too young to understand things, like in horrible child abuse situations. But I was more referring to some of the recent articles about boyfriends who have been sent to jail for having sex with their girlfriends. Maybe he's 19, she's 17. I don't think that's directly comparable to actual sexual assault or child molestation, so I feel like the penalty should be somewhat lighter. And maybe it is. Maybe the justice system DOES work on a case-by-case basis. I guess I don't really have enough information to make a decision either way, but the idea of some guy sitting in prison with thieves and killers because he had sex with somebody who was almost his age and wanted him to makes me annoyed.

 

[neosonichdghg]

I hate to sign up just to post once, but I can't help myself. Looking through this topic, I saw a lot of very interesting points, but one really stood out.

A couple of people (or maybe just one quoted repeatedly) have mentioned that rape games cannot be "justified". I think that's the core of the real misunderstanding on issues such as these. In America, content does not have to be justified to override censorship. Censorship has to be justified, and strongly so, to override the First Amendment. I know this sounds like an appeal to authority, but it's a pertinent authority and thus justified.

A very wise man named Steven den Beste said it best. "If I don't have the right to offend the neighbors, I don't have the right to free speech". No one is required by law to justify offensive communication, be it personal or commercial. They are required by law to justify harmful and false accusations - that's slander, or libel. They are required to justify dangerous speech, such as incitement to riot. If entertainment involves actually harming someone, the creators have to justify the actions they took which harmed that person or persons. But offensive material is automatically protected in this country, and I like it that way. Simply put, everything is offensive to someone. But censoring offensive material has tangible negative effects, while offense does not. Especially in the case of "opt-in" communication and material such as video games.

Whether or not someone wants to partake of such things is a personal decision. For some people, it is a moral decision. But their existence is not subject to anyone's approval, nor should it be.

Incidentally, I do not personally believe partaking in such entertainment is a moral decision. I'm not trying to couch it in euphemistic terms. The women depicted in these games are raped, often brutally. For the denizens of the game world, they are reduced from people to objects. That is a moral issue, and a despicable practice by any compassionate measure. But for humans playing the game, no such thing occurs. The women in rape games are not reduced from people to objects. They are not people, but simulations thereof.

Different people have different motivations for playing such games. Some undoubtedly play them, and enjoy them, because they would enjoy doing similar things to real women. I honestly think they are the minority, however. I find bondage to be arousing. I tend to enjoy depictions of consensual bondage play, but sometimes rape hentai can be enjoyable as well. I would never do such things to women in real life. On the contrary, I am literally nauseated by the idea of stripping someone of something as personal as their identity as a human. Make no mistake - that's what rape does. It happened to my wife, a few years before I met her, and I have had the good fortune to prevent it from happening to a college friend. When performed on real people, rape disgusts me. When performed on imaginary ones, it can be a pretext for arousing situations. Simple as that.

Posting this is probably a terrible idea, and most likely flame bait. But...none of these stances are hidden from the people I care about, and in that light it's difficult to take on-line insults seriously anyway. Flame away.

 

[zahr]

I prefer just fapping to 4chan's /d/ - Hentai/Alternative board and gurochan's /g/ - Gore/Death board, but still, this amuses me.

There were actually two young japanese girls in my calculus class last year who played hentai games in their spare time.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

But I was more referring to some of the recent articles about boyfriends who have been sent to jail for having sex with their girlfriends. Maybe he's 19, she's 17. I don't think that's directly comparable to actual sexual assault or child molestation, so I feel like the penalty should be somewhat lighter. And maybe it is. Maybe the justice system DOES work on a case-by-case basis.

In some places, there are actual laws that address that situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws

Hmm. Good, I guess. Of course, that brings up the issue of whether or not such laws can be exploited by college-age date rapists.

 

[dudeman0001]

Hymens--you break it, you bought it

I laughed cola out my nose when I read this. I wish I had it on a T-shirt.

Although I'm not surely where exactly I could get away with wearing it.

A feminist rally. Do it! *just really squeaked with excitement over the idea* ,_,

Yessss! Oh! Oh! I got another one! What about a celibacy group meeting, you know those things where people pledge not to have sex before marriage.

Totally. Appropriate.

Ahh, abstinence groups, I especially like the ones who get married to someone they're somewhat found of, divorce them, then have sex with everything that moves.
There wedding music should be
Bam-chika-wao-wao.

 

[Juraz]

Calling rape platinum doesn't take away raping in the game.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

Dude. How come we don't get games like these in the states?

 

[thedo12]

Dude. How come we don't get games like these in the states?

exactly,

we need to show support for these rave companys protecting freedom of speech.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

A rape by any other name... would be just as fucked up.

Japan should spend less time making virtual sexual assault and filling the void with more real life-size mechs.

 

[T-Bone24]

Japan! Our western culture is offended by your culture! Change it immediately before the rich landowners are offended!

 

[Grahav]

I hate to sign up just to post once, but I can't help myself. Looking through this topic, I saw a lot of very interesting points, but one really stood out.

A couple of people (or maybe just one quoted repeatedly) have mentioned that rape games cannot be "justified". I think that's the core of the real misunderstanding on issues such as these. In America, content does not have to be justified to override censorship. Censorship has to be justified, and strongly so, to override the First Amendment. I know this sounds like an appeal to authority, but it's a pertinent authority and thus justified.

A very wise man named Steven den Beste said it best. "If I don't have the right to offend the neighbors, I don't have the right to free speech". No one is required by law to justify offensive communication, be it personal or commercial. They are required by law to justify harmful and false accusations - that's slander, or libel. They are required to justify dangerous speech, such as incitement to riot. If entertainment involves actually harming someone, the creators have to justify the actions they took which harmed that person or persons. But offensive material is automatically protected in this country, and I like it that way. Simply put, everything is offensive to someone. But censoring offensive material has tangible negative effects, while offense does not. Especially in the case of "opt-in" communication and material such as video games.

Whether or not someone wants to partake of such things is a personal decision. For some people, it is a moral decision. But their existence is not subject to anyone's approval, nor should it be.

Incidentally, I do not personally believe partaking in such entertainment is a moral decision. I'm not trying to couch it in euphemistic terms. The women depicted in these games are raped, often brutally. For the denizens of the game world, they are reduced from people to objects. That is a moral issue, and a despicable practice by any compassionate measure. But for humans playing the game, no such thing occurs. The women in rape games are not reduced from people to objects. They are not people, but simulations thereof.

Different people have different motivations for playing such games. Some undoubtedly play them, and enjoy them, because they would enjoy doing similar things to real women. I honestly think they are the minority, however. I find bondage to be arousing. I tend to enjoy depictions of consensual bondage play, but sometimes rape hentai can be enjoyable as well. I would never do such things to women in real life. On the contrary, I am literally nauseated by the idea of stripping someone of something as personal as their identity as a human. Make no mistake - that's what rape does. It happened to my wife, a few years before I met her, and I have had the good fortune to prevent it from happening to a college friend. When performed on real people, rape disgusts me. When performed on imaginary ones, it can be a pretext for arousing situations. Simple as that.

Posting this is probably a terrible idea, and most likely flame bait. But...none of these stances are hidden from the people I care about, and in that light it's difficult to take on-line insults seriously anyway. Flame away.

No flame for you. I agree with all you have written

 

[geldonyetich]

There were actually two young japanese girls in my calculus class last year who played hentai games in their spare time.

Hawt. Granted, they probably did so out of some kind of girl thing, probably exploring the fundamental emotional territory the characters involved might have been going through.

Posting this is probably a terrible idea, and most likely flame bait. But...none of these stances are hidden from the people I care about, and in that light it's difficult to take on-line insults seriously anyway. Flame away.

Despite the presense of seemingly vehement posts coming from me here and there, I certainly feel everyone is suited to their own opinions, so I'll not flame you.

However, simply calling this censorship is slightly off, it's merely addressing the knee-jerk issue. The real problem at the bottom of this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech.

Instead, it has to do with if one's open-mindedness is so very open-minded as to induce genuine harm. In a scenario out of the game, we don't walk through a park and see a man raping a screaming 10-year-old girl, shrug, and keep walking, thinking to ourselves, "well, who am I to judge?" So there's a definite limit to how open-minded you can be before you're condoning harm. In other words, there's a point where being open-minded is no longer a function of intelligence, but rather an irresponsible lack thereof.

Creating games about raping people is pretty close to that line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that a game like RapeLay will definitely get a person to start raping people, even psychological experiments finding varying results. However, it's not a stretch at all to say that the open sale of such a product is condoning rape on the level of being content in a game you can buy. At the point where we're a society that chooses to condone rape on an additional level, we're that much closer to the "well, who am I to judge" scenario above.

So, when you break it all down to the fundamentals, the reason why a restriction of a game like RapeLay applies is because the harm condoning it may bring to a society is greater than the harm not condoning it may bring to the benefit free speech brings to society.

 

[edinflames]

Well said.

Personally it isn't whether or not an activity in a game is 'illegal' or not in the real world that matters to me. What counts for me is that rape is universally morally wrong (at least it is amongst people with reasonably healthy mental states).

There are no universal morals, morals are defined by the people that create and uphold them.
Trying to argue that these values are intertwined into the fabric of reality when people were raped for fun during almost every war in history is like saying "murder is wrong is a fundamental rule of the universe" whilst half the world is being nuked.

Overall, you appear to have some kind of insecurity with rape, really.
I would say freudian, but I don't wish to insult you.

You too might have an 'insecurity' about rape if one of your close friends was raped, like my housemate was, by some meat-head soldier.

I probably shouldn't have used the term 'universal' as this implies the kind of absolutes that philosophers like Plato talked about, what i meant is that in all societies worth respecting rape is not approved of.

But since you appear to be keen on pop-philosophy I'm going to make an assumption about you, like you did about me, and my assumption is thus: you are a moral-relativist, the kind that says "well, if someone believes something then they are entitled to that belief no matter how fucked up it is". IMHO you can shove your moral relativism up your arse. That kind of logic is fine when you want to say "live and let live" in multicultural society but it fails when you apply it to extreme circumstances.

Would you agree that allowing a nation to commit genocide because their leaders believe a particular race (lets say the Jews) ought to be exterminated in death-camps is 'fair enough'? Would you have ordered the UN to stand down and ignore the slaughter of Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia simply because the Serbs think its 'OK'?

No? So then why do you think that the celebration of rape is 'OK' so long as it takes place in a country where some of the men deem it to be acceptable? I'm fairly confident what the answer would be if you asked a Japanese victim of rape if she thought the man was behaving within his rights.

Rape is a horrifying, terrible experience for anyone to go through and shouldn't be trivialised or applauded in a computer game. Maybe you'd appreciate that fact if it happened to you or someone you know.

Instead, it has to do with if one's open-mindedness is so very open-minded as to induce genuine harm. In a scenario out of the game, we don't walk through a park and see a man raping a screaming 10-year-old girl, shrug, and keep walking, thinking to ourselves, "well, who am I to judge?" So there's a definite limit to how open-minded you can be before you're condoning harm. In other words, there's a point where being open-minded is no longer a function of intelligence, but rather an irresponsible lack thereof.

Creating games about raping people is pretty close to that line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that a game like RapeLay will definitely get a person to start raping people, even psychological experiments finding varying results. However, it's not a stretch at all to say that the open sale of such a product is condoning rape on the level of being content in a game you can buy. At the point where we're a society that chooses to condone rape on an additional level, we're that much closer to the "well, who am I to judge" scenario above.

So, when you break it all down to the fundamentals, the reason why a restriction of a game like RapeLay applies is because the harm condoning it may bring to a society is greater than the harm not condoning it may bring to the benefit free speech brings to society.

Well said, certainly better than I managed to express myself earlier.

 

[neosonichdghg]

You make a good point, but it serves to illustrate the heart of the matter better.

Making video games that simulate rape is extremely close to the line between what is acceptable and what is not. However, that line is very clear. If someone were to rape a 10-year-old, they would be committing a crime. If someone were to produce or play a game about raping a 10-year-old, they would not. The former is real crime, directly damaging and identifiably dangerous. The latter is thought-crime. The American legal system is constructed very carefully to protect our right to think whatever we want. There is no more slippery slope than the prosecution of thought-crime.

And, indeed, protecting it arguably makes the line between acceptable and unacceptable clearer. If rape games are banned because they are depictions of crime, that sends a message that thinking about such things is real crime. It blurs the line between acceptable and unacceptable. But lines blur both ways. If the definition of thought-crime is made murky, then the definition of real crime is similarly damaged. It's a bit like the statutory rape laws. If an 18-year-old is prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend of four years, it makes the system look less reasonable. What if the next borderline case is on the other side of the line - a 16-year-old boy, legitimately taken advantage of by a 19-year-old girl? The system will be less well-equipped to handle the case, because the faith of the public will be shaken.

Protecting thought-crime does not condone the actions depicted therein. It clearly defines them as separate and punishable actions, by dint of being more concrete in a definable sense.

 

[ygetoff]

EDIT: I wouldn't mind these so much if they had something useful about them... the same way I don't care how violent a game is if it has a decent or otherwise meaningful story.

Who knows, maybe one of those "Platinum" games is a coming to age story of a rapist with a heart of platinum, which will move you in a way art that doesn't involve non-consensual acts of sexual violence could never. I really doubt it, then again I can't read Japanese and this is really no reason to start.

What creeps me out more is the "Thoroughbred" category. Platinum as a title for a genre is ambiguous enough to be deceitful. People who enjoy "normal" sex games may research them from the misleading names. Thoroughbred has many creepier connotations at least to me. People who look into that category after thinking about the title have some "interesting" tastes to say the least.

Who knows. If anyone who has actually played these games can come forth and testify, please do.

"Thoroughbred" just scares me.

I've played Rapelay, gotta question?

Does it have a decent story? Like along the lines of a normal shooter?